How CEO Deans in Academic Pharmacy Describe and Manage High-performing and Low-performing Faculty.

OBJECTIVES: Gather Chief Executive Officer (CEO) deans' perspectives on: distinguishing a "star" faculty versus one that is "productive"; faculty who are "deadweight" to the organization; the role of organizational fit in defining starsand deadweight faculty; current efforts to recruit and retain star faculty; and the actions taken in regard to deadweight faculty.
METHODS: A focus group panel of CEO deans was convened at the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) 2019 Interim Meeting. A semi-structured interview based on an organizational behavior framework was used to guide discussion in the focus group. Content analysis with axial coding was used to uncover themes from the data.
RESULTS: Panelists indicated productivity to be a given, but that star faculty are the ones who exhibit extraordinary citizenship and leverage their talents and networks to make the program and their peers more effective. They identified nascent activities with the need to strengthen those in regard to recognizing star faculty. The panelists explicitly distinguished between deadweight, or unproductive faculty versus those who are more deleterious, even while the former might actually present a more challenging human resources management situation.
CONCLUSIONS: The research corroborated the growing recognition of the importance of faculty comportment with behaviors that extend beyond performance metrics, alone. The findings can serve as a platform for additional studies that guide decision making for organizational effectiveness in academic pharmacy. © Individual authors.

Introduction

Organizational culture literature is replete with descriptions of high- and low-performing employees. While descriptions of such evolve over time, there is still much terminology used and studies employing “star” and “deadweight” employees. In fact, the research on “star” employees continues to grow. Star employees are said to be those with disproportionately high and prolonged performance, visibility, and relevant social capital, with the latter comprised of social networks that promote trust, satisfaction level, and quality of communication in an organization.[1] Call et al. segmented the research on star employees, suggesting that there is assumed to be strong and ubiquitous positive effects exerted by stars on company performance.[2] Downs suggests that star employees produce much of an organization’s beneficial outputs, serving to offset the impact of relatively unproductive employees.[3] In a series of experiments, Kim found that the loss of star employees exerted a multiplicative detriment on organizational performance.[4]

Reigle observed that star employees provide good examples of the aptitude, attitude, motivation, and fit that most organizations desire.[5] Reisz concurred that an organization’s success is determined by the people who work there and that success has often been borne from the achievements of its star employees, through things such as innovative ideasand unique approaches to achieve their organization’s goals.[6] The impact of star employees has ramifications for science and academia. Zucker and Darby found that star bioscientists had profound effects on the pecuniary value of an organization even well after their departure.[7] They found that these stars at first tend to collaborate within their own institution before extending their collaborative networks outside of it. In fact, more recent research has demonstrated that star scientists attract one another, and they tend to migrate to organizations with other star scientists to bolster their own chances of success and be affiliated with highly reputable colleagues and organizations, not much differently than star athletes tend to migrate toward certain organizations that will enhance their earnings potential and the likelihood of playing for a championship.[8]

Faculty stars have demonstrated consistent entrepreneurship for their institutions, not only in discovering new knowledge and generating grants, publications andpatents, but also engaging their respective industry and professional organizations for collaboration and developing innovative partnerships with the local community.[9] Star faculty are attracted not only to academic institutions with other stars, but also those that are known to be innovative, or have an organizational culture supportive of faculty autonomy and innovation.[10]

Likewise, there is also a body of research describing employees who are at the very best relatively unproductive, if not deleterious to the outcomes of an organization and to their peers. These persons have been referred to as “deadweight” employees, i.e., those considered to be unproductive for lengthy periods of time, usually measured in academia by their lack of publications and funding, but additionally who might be especially problematic due to poor citizenship behaviors.[11] The antecedents of faculty becoming deadweight have been evaluated, with much of the argument centering around the tenure system, with arguments thatthe processes and expectations required to obtain tenure, as well as the incentives provided by tenure, result inthe development ofstar faculty,[12] yet also create an environment conducive to some faculty becoming deadweights.[13] The awarding of tenure in itself can be viewed as a recognition or reward for those who are or who may become stars, and there is research evincing that tenured faculty are more productive.[14] However, there is also evidence to suggest that a proportion of tenured faculty go into years of “coasting”.[15] In any case, deadweight faculty’s lack of productivity, particularly when coupled with poor attitudes, can become infectious, lowering the morale and productivity of other faculty.[16] While researchers have examined factors that impact faculty recruitment and retention at schools and colleges of pharmacy, these studies have generally not examined the spectrum of faculty performance, and actions these schools may be taking to retain or attract “stars” and to improve or ridthemselves of low performers/deadweight. Murawski and King examined the effects of salary on retention and productivity, noting the prevalence of inversion (where starting salaries accelerate more quickly for newer employees) and compression (where differences in salary among persons with considerable differences in experience become very small). Inversion and compression have been associated with faculty dissatisfaction and possible turnover among productive faculty.[17] Pate discussed the importance of faculty engagement to boost productivity and morale and enhance organizational climate and culture for successful recruitment of faculty.[18] The findings of various studies on academic pharmacy work life were reported by a task force convened by the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, which discussed the influences of organizational culture, mentorship, department chair support, and dean support.[19] Kennedy described key roles played by deans and other administrators in establishing a culture of productivity in academic pharmacy.[20] Deans of programs have considerable sway in promoting faculty development, in addition to the examples they set in handling deadweight faculty.[21] Despitethe importance of star faculty and the problematic nature of their deadweight counterparts, little has been researched in these areas within academic pharmacy. Given their importance in affecting the culture of the college/school of pharmacy, the perspectives of deans regarding the actions taken (retention, recruitment, development, dismissal, and other) for star and deadweight faculty are important to discern. The objectives of the study were to gather CEO deans’ perspectives on: distinguishing star faculty versus those that are “merely productive”; faculty who are deadweight to the organization; the role of organizational fit in defining stars and deadweight faculty; current efforts to recruit and retain star faculty; and the actions taken in regard to deadweightfaculty.

Methods

Study Design

Study methods were deemed exempt from full review by the Touro University California Institutional Review Board (IRB). A qualitative study design was employed to gather rich viewpoints regarding these issues, particularly as terms such as “stars” and “deadweight” have not been defined in academic pharmacy literature and may not be commonly used by faculty and administrators. A focus group methodology was employed rather than individual interviews, as the research aimed to describe the phenomena of interest rather than induct theory, and it was believed that the participants would be able to listen to and respond to one another, jogging additional thoughts and ideas while concomitantly comparing and contrasting viewpoints from their experiences, especially given the diverse types of institutions that the participants would represent in terms of mission, ownership, infrastructure, resources, and geographic location.[22] To that end, a phenomenological approach was taken; specifically, a philosophical perspective was sought from the participants that would emphasize their “lived experiences” and how those experiences have shaped their interpretations of events and general worldview.[23]

Theoretical Framework

The framework used in this study was adapted from an organizational theory framework employed by Roberts et al.[24] This approach employs organizational change as its foundation and suggests that such change involve open communication and involvement among persons in all ranks and job types in the organization. Such an approach provides a useful perspective for recognizing the contributions of constituents within an organization, and in turn how their behaviors may affect each other and the organization as a whole. The organizational theory framework allowed the investigators to form the needed questions composing the interview guide, but also allowed for flexibility and agility in response to interview participants’ initial answers (see Appendix 1).[25,26] The interview guide explored “star” versus “merely good” performers; the roles of productivity in teaching, scholarship, and service; retention efforts made to even further develop and maintain star talent; the extent to which stars comport with various components of academic organizational culture; the salience of in-role and extra-role behaviors in the positive and negative outcomes for an academic organization; defining characteristics of deadweight faculty and/or those even more deleterious to the organization; actions to take in regard to these types of employees; and any possible perceived misalignment between administrators and faculty in describing stars and deadweight faculty, in addition to the actions taken in their regard.

Participants

A sample of CEO deans from colleges/schools of pharmacy from around the U.S. were solicited to participate. While the process employed a focus group, participants were selected based upon tenets for selecting Delphi procedure participants.[27] Specifically, participants were sought for their likelihood to contribute and be engaged in this process and whom others in the field would recognize as experienced and give credence.[28] This was reconciled, as well, with seeking representation from schools varying in ownership (public versus private), foundational mission (teaching versus research versus balanced/comprehensive), and diverse geographic locations, as well as seeking representation along different characteristics of the participants, themselves (e.g., sex, race/ethnicity). As administrators evaluating and/or having oversight of faculty and program performance, they were deemed as having valuable input to share.[27,28]

Potential participants were sought from attendees of the AACP 2019 Interim Meeting held in Tampa, Florida in late February 2019. Potential participants were contacted several weeks prior to the Interim Meeting via email to solicit their interest in participating. Of 18 CEO deans contacted, nine accepted the invitation to participate, and eight attended the session. All eight CEO deanswho came to the session completed an informed consent agreement in which they agreed to be audio recorded, but not identified in any way. All eight participated in all aspects of the session, which lasted approximately 100 minutes. Characteristics of participants can be found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Characteristics of CEO Dean Participants/Their Institutions the Focus Group

Characteristic	Participants (No.)
Institution Type (Ownership)
Private	5
Public	3
Institution Carnegie Classification
Doctoral—Very High Research Activity	1
Doctoral—High Research Activity	4
Doctoral/Professional (No specific mention of degree of research activity)	2
Special focus—Medical (no specific mention of degree of research activity)	1
Geographic Distribution (of Participant Institution)
Mid-Atlantic	3
Midwest	2
South	1
West	2
Participant Sex
Female	4
Male	4
Participant Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White	6
Other race/ethnicity (non-White)	2

Data Analysis

With verbal consent of the participants, the interviews were conducted with notes taken during the process. The audio recording was used to create a written transcript of the discussion. The written transcript was then utilized to perform further content analysis. Directed content analysis was used to qualitatively analyze the interview transcriptfor patterns and themes. Directed content analysis is a flexible and foundational method in qualitative research and is commonly used in health care research.[29] Since organizational theory was used as a guide for constructing initial questions, the directed content analysis results are based in part on theory constructs; however, the exploratory nature of this study behooved the researchers to allow germination of themes without an overly structured approach taken a priori.[30] Still, a coding framework served as a basis for initial identification of thematic threads. The analysis was iterative and progressed through 3 cycles of recoding, relational linking, and synthesis of themes through the use of a network of nodes and branches for visualization and confirmation. Primary analysis and coding was undertaken by SD, with DZ serving in an advisory capacity during instances where SD was unsure or had issues not completely resolved. This process of visualizing the data through a prism of proximity matrices mimics the format used in NVivo qualitative analysis software output, although NVivo was not employed.[31] This process, sometimes referred to as axial coding, involves creating empirical relationships by relating codes to each other using both inductive and deductive lines of reasoning.

Results

Analysis of the data revealed 4 overarching themes: citizenship/organizational fit, faculty star qualities, star recognition, and deadweight versus toxic individuals. While all of the questions in the interview guide were touched upon, many participants kept referring back to citizenship of faculty, its importance, and the growing need to recognize good citizenship and call out bad behavior. Even though the interview guide was framed around an organizational behavior framework, the participants’ responses revolved around organizational context and fit perhaps to an even greater extent than the investigators anticipated.

Following is a brief description of each theme, along with major points underscoring the theme, with supporting quotes from accompanying tables.

Citizenship/Organizational Fit

Even prior to asking specifically about citizenship/collegiality, some participants remarked specifically upon what it means for a faculty member to be a star. Organizational citizenship is a behavioral manifestation of collegiality, and is comprised of extra-role behaviors that are not expressly part of the job description but that which assists the institution and peers through good sportsmanship and other virtuous activity. Even prior to questions specifically about “deadweight” faculty, dean participants described the presence of positive citizenship and absence of negative citizenship behaviors. They also described good citizens as those faculty being team players, looking out for one another and, making a positive impact on the organization’s climate, or overall mood. Supporting quotes for this theme can be found in Table 2.

Table 2.

Participant Comments Supporting the Citizenship/Organizational Fit Theme

“I think the value component gets to citizenship as well. . . You have somebody who is very productive but in terms of… and it’s already sort of been mentioned, but someone who is willing to flex and work with others when it's necessary, and you know, understand that we have institutional priorities, and sometimes we have to shift and I need you to move away from that for a little bit, probably to something that's more important at the moment.” (Participant 4)   “. . . when I think of someone who is productive and valuable, it’s someone [who doesn’t] play a numbers game, I can have someone who's checked all the boxes. Yes, I need to be on one committee, and have two papers and what? And by the rubric they had done everything that they need to and yet they're not a significant contributor to the greater good.”(Participant 6)   “They’re not good team players” (Participant 2) “. . . you know . . . they cause trouble . . . it’s their empire . . . And so I separate out those two, the productivity and the values . . . if you get one without the other.” (Participant 5)   “It's nice to have people that identify potential problems, hopefully before they happen and identify potential steps to avert or address the problems. And I think that's critical. Versus people that watch and say, ‘oh, this is a train wreck.’” (Participant 3)   “. . .  And to me that's the greater good, as a high tide lifts all boats, right? So that's a greater good type of activity. And sometimes there's other faculty that aren't of that orientation . . .” (Participant 1)

Faculty Star Qualities

The panel suggested that star faculty are ones who “deliver”; that is, they are able to leverage their talents. On the other hand, some talented faculty are unable to do so. They also reiterated that the stars are those who make it obvious that they are stars without necessarily trumpeting about it, while effectively networking with other colleagues.

In addition, the panel expressed that productive and very productive (star) faculty members are measured in the context of their discipline and other factors, and stressed that there are no absolutes in quantity for being referred to as a star. Table 3 provides supporting quotes, including comments related to annual performance reviews and on cycles/semesters of performance.

Table 3.

Participant Quotes Supporting the Faculty Star Qualities Theme

“I think they need to be knowledgeable, experts in their area, but that knowledge... they need to be able to impart that in a way that shows caring and compassion, not only to the students but also to their colleagues.” (Participant 1)   “I would say good organizational and time management skills. So it can be good at one thing but never get any, anything else done. So be able to multitask, balance, be organized and admit when you're overwhelmed.” (Participant 2)   Yeah, because… during annual performance reviews, uh, you know, people tend to be ranked based on how they rate relative to other faculty, and so there's not absolute numbers that you’re looking for. So it's a, it’s a relative term. (Participant 4)   “. . . there are times where somebody may be overloaded and you know, for a semester, then the next semester they're not quite as engaged. So I don't really consider that unproductive as long as it's an acute phase and not, I think, not a chronic phase. (Participant 3)   “. . . but sometimes you do see situations where persons have oodles and oodles of talent, but they don't have the ability to, to express it and to demonstrate it.” (Participant 1)   “These are not stars because we've made them stars. They're shining, and that- they're shining for everyone. But casual observer would probably recognize that they were a star.” (Participant 4)   “. . . they talk about their own accomplishments and what the reality of the situation is versus how we view what they're contributing to the organization. Um, so sometimes there's a bit of a disconnect.” (Participant 2)

Throughout the discussion, even when not asked to describe or discuss “star” faculty specifically, participants referred back to behavioral manifestations of collegiality that transcend productivity, as well as characteristics, such as time management and thirst for knowledge, that usually lend themselves to those faculty becoming stars.

Recognition of Stars

Participants offered some concrete suggestions and ideas/programs being attempted at their institution to both maintain and recruit star faculty. The prevailing wisdom was that having a culture of recognizing top performers would make the institution attractive for those already there and for those elsewhere who might consider coming aboard. Participants concurred that both informal and more formal recognition go a long way for stars and for the entire faculty (see Table 4 for comments regarding the need to have star faculty recognized simply by having something to put on their CV and how these faculty are driven). One participant remarked on a program currently in place for staff thatcould (or some version of it) beextended to faculty.

Table 4.

Participant Quotes Supporting the Recognition of Stars Theme

“The recognition and such, but awards I think are meaningful and, you know, to faculty, let's face it, it's really important if it's something they can add to their CV.” (Participant 2)   “. . . faculty are driven. They . . . have external connections, and their recognition or awards often come externally, through their associations, . . . their research . . . So what I tried to do is recognize when they received those awards. . . they actually enjoy the external recognition as long as I also recognize them.” (Participant 4)   “So we actually instituted something called Leaders at our college . . . stands for leadership, excellence, accountability - which could be a big deal - And I give them a little trophy. And individuals, they tend to be staff people who have taken sufficient courage to speak up about something that needed to be done that typically would not be in their purview . . . ” (Participant 7)   “I think the financial part of awards is all-important. They, as part of that, they need to hear that they're stars. We need to hear directly, you know, you’re... what you, what you contribute and leadership potential and just from their chair or a dean. And I've seen times when that didn't happen.” (Participant 5).   .” . . if you can prevent the star faculty member from getting on the airplane, then, uh, it's a heck of a lot easier than it is on the backside because you know, they're going to come back with an offer.” (Participant 8)   “One of the things that I do to try to retain folks, or at least attempt to retain them is um, to find out what keeps them here and what gives them satisfied. Bingo. If you know that and if it's something you can do for them and keep that joy piece strong, then you're more likely to retain them.”(Participant 7)   “And, um, whether you put out an open call to faculty that want to be considered for it [AACP Leaders Fellowship Program] or do you go tap on the shoulder of people and, um, the people that come and without any asking and want to be, you know, are probably not the people that we would go tap on the shoulder of sometimes.” (Participant 2)   “But sometimes I think that the rank and file faculty view different colleagues, the stars, than maybe what the department chair and the Dean might too.” (Participant 2)

Still, participants recognized the need for extrinsic rewards, as well, noting that when it is possible, i.e., that the budget allows for it, star faculty need to be compensated, as this sets a tone for them, which resonates throughout the program. Additionally, it should be communicated that financial rewards are tied to high-level performance, and deans should work with university officials to get creative. Regardless of type of awards, participants recognized the need to be proactive in retaining their star faculty (see Table 4 for comments about keeping the star faculty member from “getting on the airplane”).

Still, the participants expressed some challenges in retaining of star faculty while attempting to maintain an ecumenical, collegial environment for all faculty.

Deadweight versus Deleterious Individuals

Panelists made strong distinctions between deadweight and deleteriousindividuals, with deadweight faculty being those demonstrating little productivity versus those who actually cause harm and damage to theircolleagues and institutions. Panelists seemed to expect that within a larger group of individuals, there will almost invariably be some deadweight, and that the management options for them are limited. However, they felt strongly the need to snuff out individuals acting in a toxic way, which can be infectious and establish a pejorative organizational culture. Participants struggled to find good solutions to deadweight faculty,but yet did not seem to be bothered by their presence so much (see Table 5 for comments about evaluating if deadweight faculty are close to retirement and finding assignments that reinvigorate them).

Table 5.

Participant Quotes Supporting the Deadweight Versus Deleterious Individuals Theme

“Deadweight is the person that does the absolute minimum, checks off all the boxes . . . shows up at 9:30 and is out the door by 3:30. They deliver their courses, they get the grades in on time, but they do . . .  absolutely nothing extra. And you know, they show up to the committee meetings unprepared . . . Deleterious is when they're really undermining people. They're toxic. . . they could be putting the institution at risk by their behaviors . . . and they oftentimes are the ones that mislead junior faculty and students.” (Participant 2)   “. . . And then there are some that are just snarky and like it. I mean, they find joy in getting a rise out of other people and their department chair.” (Participant 1)   “If they’re deadweight, I want to look how close are they to retirement? If they have an appointment that is an administrative appointment that I have control over, I might take that appointment away from them. Um, you know, put them back in a regular faculty position. Uh, they’re getting the message that it’s not okay . . .” (Participant 4)   “And sometimes it is that they're just in the wrong seat, you know, and sometimes I doubt , , ,  This is a hard diagnosis to determine whether it's lack of confidence or willingness to, to do anything more than that. I think trying to get a handle on that then helps determine whether some type of change in assignments will reinvigorate them or . . . “ (Participant 3)   “You may have a person who’s very productive in terms of research . . . they show up to class and then at least get average teaching evaluations. . . But they're a jerk. We [our university] did not have a standard of faculty conduct and [then we] did. And after that time point, then that enabled us to include that as part of the annual evaluations.”(Participant 2)   “. . . the egregious ones are a lot easier. . .  it’s just obvious that they had to go. But the others, the deadweight, the nonproductive individuals are very challenging because it affects the morale. And that's the piece that's so dangerous because it affects their colleagues.” (Participant 1)   “The toxic folks, too. Even if it's not egregious. If they're just going in a faculty member's offices, closing the door and just having at it. Well, and you know, chronic whining, starting rumors, making unfounded accusations and such, and then trying to reel all that back in.” (Participant 2) “. . . in my opinion, that actively disruptive, going out to intentionally stir up messes and create problems. Then there's the passive one, the one who never responds to email and then you find out that a student in their class has a disability and has been trying to line up extended time on a test or something and just put the institution in major risk. That's where, you know, if there's communication with the chair, you know, the chair should be finding out those passive ones. . . [You] can't wait until annual evaluation.”(Participant 8) “You know, uh, I think about difficult conversations. And these are the things I try never to put off. If there's something that needs to be said to someone, let's get it over with, and let's do it now. Let's not wait until the annual evaluation.” (Participant 4)

In making the distinction between deadweight and deleterious faculty, the panelists articulated that dealing with the latter is even more problematic in the absence of guidance and support at the university/institutional level. While the panelists pointed out time and again that the toxic persons were far more problematic, they also indicated that dealing with them was in a sense easier, since their behaviors were clearer violations of conduct. The panelists agreed that being proactive is key (see Table 5 for comments on being in consistent dialogue with chairs and not putting off difficult conversations).

Discussion

This studysought the collective opinions of CEO deans from U.S. pharmacy programs in a focus group. The participants highlighted the importance of having star faculty, pointing out thatthey are the onesreliedupon to solve problems, innovate, and carry the organization forward. They also made distinctions betweendeadweightfaculty versus thosewho are deleterious to the organization and to their colleagues. Kehoe et al. developed a typology of star employees, consisting of universal stars, performance stars, and status stars.[32] The panelists from the current study touched upon all three, but primarily proffered their basis of “stardom” around the concept of universal stars. That is, they assumed that the stars would be productive in scholarship and in teaching, but that academic pharmacy stars transcend performance metrics, alone. In concordance with Kehoe et al’s universal stars, the deans in this study honed in on stars’ extraordinary dedication, putting the organization ahead of their own self-interestand helping those around them sothat the entire organization is made a better place. These individuals likely promote a positive ethos and assist the organization in remaining calm in turbulent times, help create a reputation for the program that makes it attractive to both potential new students and potential new employees, reduces administrative burden, and allows supervisors and peers to focus on things that are more productive.

Perkmann et al. found that “faculty quality” was associated with enhanced engagement with related industries.[33] This was found to be particularly the case with “star scientists”, who are more likely to forge relationships that facilitate technological advancements, patents, co-funded grants, and mutually beneficial training opportunities for faculty and students, alike. This might especially be the case in the current environment of a shrinking student applicant pool and diminishing extramural funding opportunities, and with the remaining funding opportunities increasingly geared toward collaborative efforts and community partnerships that serve as regional economic engines. Academic pharmacy organizations and their star facultylook to collaborate withcommunity partners in a variety of ways, including workforce development with the pharmaceutical industry.[34,35] These collaborations, in addition to innovations,such as educational programs owning their own pharmacies, address community needs, diversify revenue streams, and serve as high-quality sites for experiential education.[36,37]

Even while panelists in this study described the benefits of having stars, they recognized the disconnect that might exist between whom they view as stars versus how “rank-and-file” faculty peers might view stars. Oldroyd and Morris describe how star employees create social capital and value for their organizations, yet might be sensitive to burnout and be the target of envy among peers who are less productive.[38] Groysberg and Lee recommend that star faculty be recognized as exemplars for their organizations, but that public acts of praise be used judiciously while recognizing the contributions of other solid performers who might be not stars, per se.[39]

Those recommendations comport with the current study panelists’ suggestions that high-performing faculty begiven judicious amounts of recognition and, to the extent possible, rewardedtangibly with certain extrinsic rewards, which in tight budgetary times will require college administrators to be creative and seek solutions with university officials. Boyle highlighted the importance of recognizing excellence, offering advice for academic pharmacists to recognize one another effectively and harmoniously.[40] Ziend et al., while not using the term “star”, recognized the importance of engaging highly productive faculty in mentorship programs,with the understanding that these faculty be afforded opportunities to express their autonomy in creative ways and given credit in workload for mentoring.[41]

The participant dean panel consistently referred to stars in the context of citizenship behaviors, beginning with a sense of volunteerism, but going above and beyond volunteerism to a selfless and team-oriented attitude to elevating the performance of peers and to networking, forging alliances, and demonstrating high levels of emotional intelligence. This comports with a measure of organizational citizenship behaviors in academic pharmacy comprised of domains in conscientiousness, altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, and civic virtue.[42] Recognizingits importance, AACP recently convened a task force on citizenship aimed to shed further light on its hopeful proliferation throughout the academy.[43] Among the recommendations of this task force was to incorporate citizenship into faculty evaluations. Several dean panelists in the current study indicated that their programs were beginning to do so.

The evaluation of citizenship, and even the characteristics said to embody stardom in academic pharmacy,were described within the context of organizational culture, another concept increasingly recognized for its importance to organizational and constituent member outcomes.[19] Participants repeatedly prioritized the need for stars to assist with helping the organization achieve, innovate, and build relationships.[44] Yet, the panel also acknowledged that high performance, particularly in research and scholarship, as well as teaching, are a “given” for faculty stars, and theiremphasis on collegiality must be reconciled against current organizational rewards systems that appear skewed more toward research productivity than citizenship behaviors.

On the other end of the spectrum, the dean panel described low performers, but made very clear distinctions between deadweightfaculty versus those who are more deleterious. While it is preferable not to have or to minimize the number of deadweight employees in an organization, evidence suggests that these deadweight faculty can be overcome with a higher prevalence of top performers.[45] However, there is evidence to suggest that the presence of just a few deleterious, or toxic members of a faculty can fuel job dissatisfaction, anger, stress, and even decrements in the productivity of peers.[46] Clark et al., in a review of facultyincivility,describedthese actions in the context of thesepersons « playinggames », and offered suggestions for peers and administrators on methods for thwarting these.[47]

Still, dealing with unproductive and deadweight faculty was said to be challenging, and this has been acknowledged outside of pharmacy.[48] While not necessarily toxic/deleterious, an overabundance of deadweight faculty sets the tone for an unhealthy culture.[49] There have been a number of suggestions proffered for dealing with such faculty; however, many of them revolve around post-tenure review, [13] which is becoming less salient with the increasing number of faculty in non-tenure-track positions. It has been suggested that while challenging, it is indeed possible to develop deadweight faculty, [16] particularly with use of junior colleagues and post-graduate students who might serve to energize and rekindle flames among those who might otherwise be burned out

Study Limitations

The results of the study should be taken in light of several limitations. The study employed the use of a focus group with a purposive sample of individuals attending a conference; and thus, the results are not generalizeable, even to other academic pharmacy deans. The views were generated entirely by CEO deans who are experienced and have been “in the trenches”. Further research is required to discern the views of other administrators and faculty with no administrative experience to identify discrepancies in their opinions that might demand reconciliation or adjudication. In use of a focus group, the researchers cannot rule out the possibility that groupthink may have occurred, even among a set of participants representing programs and institutions quite varied in nature. Only one focus group was conducted. There was no attempt at saturation, and it is quite possible that a different group of participants could have produced alternative viewpoints.

The backgrounds of the investigators involved in this study present both a strength and a limitation. The two investigators are both at the rank of full professor, each with over 20 years of experience. Each investigator has served in nonadministrative faculty roles, as well as in administrative roles including department chair, assistant/associate dean, and CEO dean. Both were educated/trained with a PhD in social and administrative pharmaceutical sciences at doctoral-granting institutions and have worked at both public and private institutions. Their experience and their education/training provide them with the background to have undertaken this endeavor, as well as to communicate with/moderate the focus group participants, as they (researchers) were well versed in the issues and thus able to discern and even effectively probe for information, when needed from the participants. However, different researchers perhaps with less experience and/or with different education/training backgrounds could have moderated the focus group differently, thus yielding different data, and could have interpreted these or other data in a different manner. Finally, while the researchers brought extensive experience into the process, there was no attempt at triangulation, nor any attempt to evince confirmability or transferability as per Lincoln and Guba.[50]

Future Research

As with any focus group, the learning from the limited number of participants sheds light on the need to gather opinions from additional deans, as well as from department chairs and faculty themselves. Other research can help determine the veracity of the opinions from this small group of CEO deans by studying faculty who have been promoted, and given favorable assignments, as well as those who have been released from their positions or otherwise “demoted” and reconcile those perspectives against the deans’ reports here. Another avenue of study would be to examine faculty handbooks and/or specific college policies and procedures of the most recent versus older versions and perform a content analysis to determine the extent to which these sorts of things (about culture and citizenship, for example) have been incorporated into more recent versions of such documents. Research could inquire whether those who engage in these behaviors feel as fulfilled as those who are producing more scholarship. Research could enumerate or quantify various behaviors that are considered detrimental or toxic, such as ascribing a 'value' to them through an interval-level or ratio scale. Research could potentially determine if indeed such acts of 'stardom' negate or even trump actions that are deadweight or toxic (perhaps they do trump deadweight but not toxic actions) for the organization as a whole.

Conclusion

A focus group discussion among CEO academic pharmacy deans regarding star and deadweight faculty uncovered four themes: identification of the behaviors that constitute a star; recognizing stars in the context of retaining existing and recruiting future members to the organization; the critical nature of citizenship behavior and organizational fit; and suggestions for dealing with deadweight versus more deleterious faculty. The researchcorroborated the growing recognition of the importance of faculty comportment with behaviors that extend beyond performance metrics, alone. The findings here can serve as a platform for additional studies that guide decision making for organizational effectiveness in academic pharmacy.